Angels of Death

[mousemeat]

Well, he's there to do a job by that point. He's been asked to bring Steed in. It's a hard thing for him to do. Being neutral/professional about it probably helps him cope. And really, I've never blamed him for getting annoyed when Steed brings up Purdey. At that point in time, it just sounds like a desperate attempt by Steed to get out of the arrest, and like he's using Gambit's affection for Purdey for his own ends. If someone tried to use someone I cared about as a way to get out of something, I'd be annoyed, too.

(Purdey's supposed to be on vacation at her mother's, btw, which is why it doesn't strike Gambit as odd that she's not around--she's not supposed to be in town. The last time he sees her she's just about to leave. That's why he checks with her mother to confirm Steed's story).

Anyway, I agree that Gambit is more "shoot first, ask questions later" in action stakes, but I think he's willing to listen to Steed when he's got a different approach. And he is more contemplative in the non-action things. Lots of his conversations with Purdey touch on all sorts of esoteric topics, and he always engages with her and gives her (often quite tangential) musings thought, rather than dismiss or ignore her. He's happy to learn new things from Steed. So I don't see him as narrow-minded. And he's always willing to help a friend out of a tight spot, often at great cost to himself, which I don't see as selfish. I'm struggling to see how his reaction to Purdey dying is selfish. He cares so much for her that he's willing to do anything to save/avenge her. If Gambit's sentiment is selfish, why isn't Steed's statement that he'd do the same? If Steed had voiced it first, and Gambit had said that he'd help him, would that make Steed selfish? It seems more selfish to me to automatically assume that Steed feels the as passionately about something/someone as he does, or would want to deal with it the same way (especially since what he'd plan to do would likely get him kicked out of his job or arrested or some such in the process).

Anyway, we're never going to agree on this, but heigh ho (as Emma would say). I think Gambit's a very selfless character, and reflective in his own way. Other than when he's kicking down doors.

Again, I don't find him particularly sympathetic in Hostage (or in Obsession, which is a similar story in terms of the leads' dynamics). Granted that he's largely kept out of the loop, he still behaves in what's basically a self-assured manner in attempting to arrest Steed and declining to give the man the benefit of the doubt - again, a man meant to be his friend and colleague. It's the fact that he automatically assumes that Steed is lying about Purdey, which shows that Gambit has a poor understanding of Steed's character, or at least rates Steed far lower as a human being.

His reaction to Purdey's possible death is self-involved in the sense that his first reaction is to consider what it means to him. He does not think about her, about Steed, about anyone except himself. He does not consider other people's emotions. In most of his interactions with Purdey, in fact, he seems to think more about himself and what she thinks of him than he does about anything else - she is important only insofar as she is important to him. So perhaps selfish is the wrong word - self-involved.

Gambit seems be constantly attempting to prove his masculinity, his capabilities, and his intellect against others - usually Steed, sometimes younger male agents. I don't really see much evidence of him being contemplative, nor helping a friend out of a tight spot at cost to himself.

Yeah, of course we're not going to agree, but I do enjoy the conversation.

that's the bauty of threads like this..and forums such as this one...we can certainly wax our thoughts and opinions on any part of the show...

[Frankymole]

Anyway, I agree that Gambit is more "shoot first, ask questions later" in action stakes, but I think he's willing to listen to Steed when he's got a different approach. And he is more contemplative in the non-action things.

To be fair, Gambit is supposed to be an action man, in contrast to the experienced, cunning steed, so it isn't really fair to criticise him for being what the character was written and cast as. Clemens and Spooner didn't know Patrick would be so active still, so played safe. Maybe they were wrong to do that, but Gambit is exactly as he should be.

[Lhbizness]

Anyway, I agree that Gambit is more "shoot first, ask questions later" in action stakes, but I think he's willing to listen to Steed when he's got a different approach. And he is more contemplative in the non-action things.

To be fair, Gambit is supposed to be an action man, in contrast to the experienced, cunning steed, so it isn't really fair to criticise him for being what the character was written and cast as. Clemens and Spooner didn't know Patrick would be so active still, so played safe. Maybe they were wrong to do that, but Gambit is exactly as he should be.

Well, that's just it - I don't like the character. It's one of those occasions where there's a lot they could have done with the character, but he generally grates on me. He is exactly as he's written, I'm sure of that.

[Timeless A-Peel]

Again, I don't find him particularly sympathetic in Hostage (or in Obsession, which is a similar story in terms of the leads' dynamics). Granted that he's largely kept out of the loop, he still behaves in what's basically a self-assured manner in attempting to arrest Steed and declining to give the man the benefit of the doubt - again, a man meant to be his friend and colleague. It's the fact that he automatically assumes that Steed is lying about Purdey, which shows that Gambit has a poor understanding of Steed's character, or at least rates Steed far lower as a human being.

His reaction to Purdey's possible death is self-involved in the sense that his first reaction is to consider what it means to him. He does not think about her, about Steed, about anyone except himself. He does not consider other people's emotions. In most of his interactions with Purdey, in fact, he seems to think more about himself and what she thinks of him than he does about anything else - she is important only insofar as she is important to him. So perhaps selfish is the wrong word - self-involved.

Gambit seems be constantly attempting to prove his masculinity, his capabilities, and his intellect against others - usually Steed, sometimes younger male agents. I don't really see much evidence of him being contemplative, nor helping a friend out of a tight spot at cost to himself.

Yeah, of course we're not going to agree, but I do enjoy the conversation.

He's not really in a position to give Steed the benefit of the doubt--he's under orders. And Steed doesn't really do a lot to help his case. I think the idea that Steed would use Purdey against him does hurt, which is why it annoys him--he can't believe Steed would do something like that. But the way Steed says it just sounds desperate and like he's cornered, willing to say anything. If Steed had just confided in Gambit to begin with, they could have avoided the whole thing. Maybe that's part of the reason Gambit isn't willing to believe him at the end--he assumes that Steed would have asked him for help when he needed it, because Gambit would gladly give it. I think it's the fact that he understands Steed's character that makes the whole thing so hard to swallow--it seems so out-of-character, and yet Steed doesn't tell him anything that would suggest he needs help.

I'm not sure how you can take Gambit wanting to avenge Purdey's death and draw a straight line to "it's all about him." Of course he's devastated by the idea that she might die. That doesn't mean he's not worried about Purdey for her own sake. And there are lots of instances where he worries after Purdey that have nothing to do with him or what he might get out of it. I don't get the sense that, if he wasn't with Purdey, he wouldn't give a damn about what happened to her. He doesn't want her to be unhappy, hurt, or killed. I can't see what's so selfish about that.

Gambit seems pretty matey with his fellow agents on average, and he's always gutted when they die, even the ones that he didn't see eye-to-eye with. As for helping friends out of tight spots at cost to himself, I'm not sure how many times one man has to have the stuffing kicked out of him or get shot to save his friends before it proves he cares--shot both in K is for Kill and Angels of Death, put through the wringer at the end of Hostage. In all three cases Purdey and/or Steed would be dead if Gambit hadn't saved them, but he's the one who takes on the injuries.

And I think Gareth played the role as more than written, actually. I think Gambit as a character rewards the most in terms of rewatches, more so than any of the other leads, because a lot of his little lines and touches can get overlooked if you don't pay attention. The Avengers was always about subverting things, including its characters--they appeared one way, and were actually another. Reading Gambit as a stock action man is the surface reading, just the way reading Purdey as a feminine thing in floaty dresses is. But Purdey's the one who swigs Vodka with Russian agents, and Gambit's the one that feeds the little sparrow on his windowsill and picks up arguments on commitment from last Tuesday. There's more there than meets the eye.

[Lhbizness]

He's not really in a position to give Steed the benefit of the doubt--he's under orders. And Steed doesn't really do a lot to help his case. I think the idea that Steed would use Purdey against him does hurt, which is why it annoys him--he can't believe Steed would do something like that. But the way Steed says it just sounds desperate and like he's cornered, willing to say anything. If Steed had just confided in Gambit to begin with, they could have avoided the whole thing. Maybe that's part of the reason Gambit isn't willing to believe him at the end--he assumes that Steed would have asked him for help when he needed it, because Gambit would gladly give it. I think it's the fact that he understands Steed's character that makes the whole thing so hard to swallow--it seems so out-of-character, and yet Steed doesn't tell him anything that would suggest he needs help.

I'm not sure how you can take Gambit wanting to avenge Purdey's death and draw a straight line to "it's all about him." Of course he's devastated by the idea that she might die. That doesn't mean he's not worried about Purdey for her own sake. And there are lots of instances where he worries after Purdey that have nothing to do with him or what he might get out of it. I don't get the sense that, if he wasn't with Purdey, he wouldn't give a damn about what happened to her. He doesn't want her to be unhappy, hurt, or killed. I can't see what's so selfish about that.

Gambit seems pretty matey with his fellow agents on average, and he's always gutted when they die, even the ones that he didn't see eye-to-eye with. As for helping friends out of tight spots at cost to himself, I'm not sure how many times one man has to have the stuffing kicked out of him or get shot to save his friends before it proves he cares--shot both in K is for Kill and Angels of Death, put through the wringer at the end of Hostage. In all three cases Purdey and/or Steed would be dead if Gambit hadn't saved them, but he's the one who takes on the injuries.

And I think Gareth played the role as more than written, actually. I think Gambit as a character rewards the most in terms of rewatches, more so than any of the other leads, because a lot of his little lines and touches can get overlooked if you don't pay attention. The Avengers was always about subverting things, including its characters--they appeared one way, and were actually another. Reading Gambit as a stock action man is the surface reading, just the way reading Purdey as a feminine thing in floaty dresses is. But Purdey's the one who swigs Vodka with Russian agents, and Gambit's the one that feeds the little sparrow on his windowsill and picks up arguments on commitment from last Tuesday. There's more there than meets the eye.

I disagree. He is in a position to give Steed the benefit of the doubt - in fact, he's probably the only one, because he's supposed to know Steed the best. But he doesn't.

My point in his reaction to Purdey's death is that his immediate response is "I must avenge her because her death affects me." There is a self-involvement there - he relates to Purdey as though she is reflective of him and his desires, not her own person. Her death is going to affect him and that is his first thought. While I do believe that he has a great deal of affection for her, I do not quite buy that it's a selfless one. Hence he fails to mark that anyone else could be affected by her death.

Granted that I've not seen TNA quite as many times as I've seen other eras of the show, I admit that the depth of Gambit's character continues to elude me. While he has his moments (the scene in Sleeper is quite cute), he seems to be largely a surface character. I think he's meant at times to have depth, but it becomes more an illusion of depth than anything more substantial. Some of this might have to do with the limitations of the show itself - it only has 26 episodes, after all. However Purdey does seem to gain more substance as time passes; Gambit doesn't appear to.

[Timeless A-Peel]

I disagree. He is in a position to give Steed the benefit of the doubt - in fact, he's probably the only one, because he's supposed to know Steed the best. But he doesn't.

My point in his reaction to Purdey's death is that his immediate response is "I must avenge her because her death affects me." There is a self-involvement there - he relates to Purdey as though she is reflective of him and his desires, not her own person. Her death is going to affect him and that is his first thought. While I do believe that he has a great deal of affection for her, I do not quite buy that it's a selfless one. Hence he fails to mark that anyone else could be affected by her death.

Granted that I've not seen TNA quite as many times as I've seen other eras of the show, I admit that the depth of Gambit's character continues to elude me. While he has his moments (the scene in Sleeper is quite cute), he seems to be largely a surface character. I think he's meant at times to have depth, but it becomes more an illusion of depth than anything more substantial. Some of this might have to do with the limitations of the show itself - it only has 26 episodes, after all. However Purdey does seem to gain more substance as time passes; Gambit doesn't appear to.

He gives Steed the benefit of the doubt right up until he's ordered to bring him in. But I think if Steed hadn't blocked him so many times up to that point, he would've been more inclined to believe his story about Purdey. But in the end it just ends up sounding desperate. I mean, when Steed says "It's Purdey," it even sounds like someone scrabbling around trying to think "Boy, what could I use to throw him off" to me, and I know what's going on in the plot! Maybe Gambit should have given him the benefit of the doubt, but Steed could have let Gambit know what was going on and asked for help. Steed's very clever. You're telling me he couldn't have thought of some way to tip Gambit off without alerting the kidnappers, at least to give him something to indicate that he was under some sort of duress. But he doesn't. Gambit gives him the benefit of the doubt for much longer than the evidence would indicate, and even after Steed's knocked him out, Gambit checks his story anyway. If Gambit does doubt Steed, it's obvious not a very strong doubt, because he doesn't take the fact that he attacked him as a reason to just up on him altogether.

I still don't get where "I must avenge her because her death affects me". All he says is that he'll avenge her death. He doesn't say anything along the lines of "how dare they kill my partner" or similar. Someone tried to kill Purdey. He'll make them pay for it, regardless of personal consequence. I fail to see how it's different to Steed saying he'll hunt them down, too, or that they can't let her die. Is that selfish? Or when Steed's threatening to hurt/kill people when they've got Emma or Tara or whoever. Is that selfish, too? And anyway, he follows up Steed's comment that they're all expendable with, "I know the rules, Steed. But it is Purdey." Not "our Purdey" or my Purdey" or "our partner/friend." Just Purdey. Doesn't that suggest that he sees her life as valuable in and of itself?

Gambit did get more chances to have depth in season one, I agree. But after Patrick complained, his character got cut down to give Steed more screentime, and got less attention characterisationwise as a result. Despite that, Gareth does manage to get lots of little things in there, but he's not showy about it. He can underplay things quite beautifully.

[Frankymole]

Is it time to bring out the "thicker cardboard" quote?

[Lhbizness]

He gives Steed the benefit of the doubt right up until he's ordered to bring him in. But I think if Steed hadn't blocked him so many times up to that point, he would've been more inclined to believe his story about Purdey. But in the end it just ends up sounding desperate. I mean, when Steed says "It's Purdey," it even sounds like someone scrabbling around trying to think "Boy, what could I use to throw him off" to me, and I know what's going on in the plot! Maybe Gambit should have given him the benefit of the doubt, but Steed could have let Gambit know what was going on and asked for help. Steed's very clever. You're telling me he couldn't have thought of some way to tip Gambit off without alerting the kidnappers, at least to give him something to indicate that he was under some sort of duress. But he doesn't. Gambit gives him the benefit of the doubt for much longer than the evidence would indicate, and even after Steed's knocked him out, Gambit checks his story anyway. If Gambit does doubt Steed, it's obvious not a very strong doubt, because he doesn't take the fact that he attacked him as a reason to just up on him altogether.

I still don't get where "I must avenge her because her death affects me". All he says is that he'll avenge her death. He doesn't say anything along the lines of "how dare they kill my partner" or similar. Someone tried to kill Purdey. He'll make them pay for it, regardless of personal consequence. I fail to see how it's different to Steed saying he'll hunt them down, too, or that they can't let her die. Is that selfish? Or when Steed's threatening to hurt/kill people when they've got Emma or Tara or whoever. Is that selfish, too? And anyway, he follows up Steed's comment that they're all expendable with, "I know the rules, Steed. But it is Purdey." Not "our Purdey" or my Purdey" or "our partner/friend." Just Purdey. Doesn't that suggest that he sees her life as valuable in and of itself?

Gambit did get more chances to have depth in season one, I agree. But after Patrick complained, his character got cut down to give Steed more screentime, and got less attention characterisationwise as a result. Despite that, Gareth does manage to get lots of little things in there, but he's not showy about it. He can underplay things quite beautifully.

OK, what it sounds like is you think that Gambit's reaction in Hostage is Steed's fault, while I think it's Gambit's fault. I'll repeat that I do think that the reason why Steed doesn't tell Gambit about Purdey's kidnapping initially is because he's afraid that Gambit's reaction will simply result in her death. Whether that's fair or not is up for debate. Given Gambit's previous tendencies to shoot first, I don't think it's a major stretch.

I'm not certain how else to put it - Gambit's first reaction to Purdey's possible death is to consider what it means to him, as though he is the only one affected by her death. His statement is something along the lines of "If she dies, I'll find them." He completely misses or fails to consider that there is another man in the car with the exact same claim on loyalty to Purdey as he has. Then he's reminded that Steed cares too - that there are, in effect, other people in her life who care about whether she lives or dies. I'm saying that his self-involvement blinds him to the fact that there are other human beings, including her, who will be affected. I will grant that Steed has a similar reaction to Emma or Tara or Cathy being put in danger, but he does not couch them in the terms "I will avenge her death" - usually when Emma's in danger, his statement is simply "Where is she?" (And really, since Steed only has one partner, there's no chance for debate about who will care more if the third partner dies).

I do not see great depth in Gambit's character in general. While Purdey develops over time, I do not see him progressing in any sense, regardless of screentime. As I say, maybe if the show continued for longer I would be able to see it better, but it didn't. The "thicker cardboard" argument is all well and good if you're willing to buy it, but despite the TNA characters being provided with greater narrative backstory within the confines of the show, I don't think any of them are "deeper" than the original Avengers. Patrick Macnee, Diana Rigg and Honor Blackman gave their characters depth via their performances, despite not having a great deal of visible or narrative development.

[Timeless A-Peel]

OK, what it sounds like is you think that Gambit's reaction in Hostage is Steed's fault, while I think it's Gambit's fault. I'll repeat that I do think that the reason why Steed doesn't tell Gambit about Purdey's kidnapping initially is because he's afraid that Gambit's reaction will simply result in her death. Whether that's fair or not is up for debate. Given Gambit's previous tendencies to shoot first, I don't think it's a major stretch.

I'm not certain how else to put it - Gambit's first reaction to Purdey's possible death is to consider what it means to him, as though he is the only one affected by her death. His statement is something along the lines of "If she dies, I'll find them." He completely misses or fails to consider that there is another man in the car with the exact same claim on loyalty to Purdey as he has. Then he's reminded that Steed cares too - that there are, in effect, other people in her life who care about whether she lives or dies. I'm saying that his self-involvement blinds him to the fact that there are other human beings, including her, who will be affected. I will grant that Steed has a similar reaction to Emma or Tara or Cathy being put in danger, but he does not couch them in the terms "I will avenge her death" - usually when Emma's in danger, his statement is simply "Where is she?" (And really, since Steed only has one partner, there's no chance for debate about who will care more if the third partner dies).

I do not see great depth in Gambit's character in general. While Purdey develops over time, I do not see him progressing in any sense, regardless of screentime. As I say, maybe if the show continued for longer I would be able to see it better, but it didn't. The "thicker cardboard" argument is all well and good if you're willing to buy it, but despite the TNA characters being provided with greater narrative backstory within the confines of the show, I don't think any of them are "deeper" than the original Avengers. Patrick Macnee, Diana Rigg and Honor Blackman gave their characters depth via their performances, despite not having a great deal of visible or narrative development.

Maybe Gambit should have given him one last chance at the end, but he wasn't in a position to professionally. And if he should have, that doesn't mean that Steed shouldn't have given Gambit the benefit of the doubt and told him what was going on to begin with. Steed's not perfect--he is capable of making the wrong call once in awhile. I'm sorry, but the last thing Gambit would do is jeopardise Purdey's life, regardless of his approach. Steed knows that, and the fact that the kidnappers explicitly tell him not to warn Gambit should tip him off that they worry about Gambit interfering with their plan. I suspect it has more to do with Steed wanting to keep Gambit out of is so that he doesn't get implicated if it all goes wrong and Steed winds up dead or arrested. But that doesn't mean it's the right call. But given the way Steed's been acting, Gambit gives him more leeway than anyone else does, including after Steed attacks him. You seem to be arguing that Steed should be able to act with impunity without consequence.

I think you'll find that the first thing Gambit says in the car is "Steed, if she dies," so first off, he's engaging Steed on the issue right from the start. Second, I'm not sure how Gambit can be expected to speak for anyone but himself in this instance. To speak on what Steed could/should do regarding Purdey, to assume that Steed feels or would react the same way, would be profoundly arrogant. The way he words his opening line is actually quite open and respectful of Steed--it expresses how he feels while giving Steed to say his piece, without imposing the way he feels on Steed. Furthermore, when Steed tells him that he'll help hunt them down, does Gambit tell that no, he's going to do it on his own? No. It'd also be wrong to assume that Steed would help him on his vendetta. It'd be wrong to speak for Steed at all, and Gambit doesn't presume to. But he never shuts Steed down or says that he cares more of the two. But he can only speak for himself.

(And the fact that Steed never has anyone to talk about how he feels when Emma or whoever is in trouble doesn't change motivation. He frequently puts an assignment at risk to save his partners. Other people he doesn't care about he would never take that risk for. That means Steed jeopardises the well-being of his country for people that he cares about. Isn't that "selfish"?)

[Lhbizness]

Maybe Gambit should have given him one last chance at the end, but he wasn't in a position to professionally. And if he should have, that doesn't mean that Steed shouldn't have given Gambit the benefit of the doubt and told him what was going on to begin with. Steed's not perfect--he is capable of making the wrong call once in awhile. I'm sorry, but the last thing Gambit would do is jeopardise Purdey's life, regardless of his approach. Steed knows that, and the fact that the kidnappers explicitly tell him not to warn Gambit should tip him off that they worry about Gambit interfering with their plan. I suspect it has more to do with Steed wanting to keep Gambit out of is so that he doesn't get implicated if it all goes wrong and Steed winds up dead or arrested. But that doesn't mean it's the right call. But given the way Steed's been acting, Gambit gives him more leeway than anyone else does, including after Steed attacks him. You seem to be arguing that Steed should be able to act with impunity without consequence.

I think you'll find that the first thing Gambit says in the car is "Steed, if she dies," so first off, he's engaging Steed on the issue right from the start. Second, I'm not sure how Gambit can be expected to speak for anyone but himself in this instance. To speak on what Steed could/should do regarding Purdey, to assume that Steed feels or would react the same way, would be profoundly arrogant. The way he words his opening line is actually quite open and respectful of Steed--it expresses how he feels while giving Steed to say his piece, without imposing the way he feels on Steed. Furthermore, when Steed tells him that he'll help hunt them down, does Gambit tell that no, he's going to do it on his own? No. It'd also be wrong to assume that Steed would help him on his vendetta. It'd be wrong to speak for Steed at all, and Gambit doesn't presume to. But he never shuts Steed down or says that he cares more of the two. But he can only speak for himself.

(And the fact that Steed never has anyone to talk about how he feels when Emma or whoever is in trouble doesn't change motivation. He frequently puts an assignment at risk to save his partners. Other people he doesn't care about he would never take that risk for. That means Steed jeopardises the well-being of his country for people that he cares about. Isn't that "selfish"?)

And I'm saying that he was in a position to give Steed the benefit of the doubt - it's not like either of these men play by professional rules 3/4s of the time. Maybe Steed did make a wrong call - but by the same token it seems to be based in his fear that Gambit would inadvertently do something that would put Purdey in danger. Again, I don't think that's an extreme assumption to make, given what we know about Gambit. I am not at all saying that Steed should be able to act with impunity, but his analysis of the situation seems to be based in his knowledge of Gambit's personality - while Gambit's analysis seems to disregard what he knows about Steed (this in a show that features Steed being accused of treachery pretty constantly with little basis).

I really don't know how else to put it, except to reiterate what I said about Gambit viewing Purdey's death in relation to himself and his desire for vengeance - a pretty basic narrative ploy in which the male character is given impetus for revenge via the death of a woman, which places greater importance on the man's vengeance than on the woman's life. This is the way that the dialogue is written - and it could have been written differently. There's no reason that that scene has to be a particular way.

Yeah, Steed pretty constantly values his partners lives over everything else, including his country, and that can be viewed as a selfish impulse. (Although he does generally try to keep innocent people from being killed, if he can). But what I'm trying to say is that the dynamic in TNA is different - there are three partners, not two, and neither partner has a greater "claim" on the others. The push and pull of the series often comes down to Gambit and Steed with Purdey in the middle - which is what's happening in Target. I'm not saying that Gambit is wrong for wanting to avenge Purdey - merely that the way that he talks and treats her places greater emphasis on himself and his suffering.

Anyways, I fully admit that I'm more critical of Gambit, and that there are things that irk me when Gambit does them but I'm more willing to forgive in Steed. But I'm not trying to be unfair to him, just questioning some of his behaviors and attitudes.